Consistent with a national trend, the Los Angeles City Council’s Economic Development Committee voted last week in favor of a new law prohibiting most employers from inquiring about a job applicant’s possible criminal history until an initial job offer is made and allowing applicants to appeal an adverse decision. The proposed law, known as the Los Angeles Fair Chance Initiative for Hiring (Ban the Box), will next be heard by the Entertainment and Facilities Committee and if approved, would then be considered by the full City Council.
Referred to as a “ban the box” law, the proposed law seeks to ban the “check box” or other questions on a job application regarding criminal convictions and prohibit employers from inquiring about such convictions by any other means until a conditional employment offer is made. Businesses located in or doing business in the city, having at least 10 employees (including the owner and managers) would have to comply.
Under the proposed law, employers wanting to rescind a job offer after learning of an applicant’s criminal history would have to issue a written report showing linkage between the applicant’s criminal history and risks inherent in the duties in the position sought and provide the report to the applicant, after which the applicant can appeal the decision by providing the employer with mitigating information or evidence of the history’s inaccuracy. Violations would carry a $500 penalty for a first offense, $1,000 for a second offense and $2,000 for a third offense.
Employers would have to include in job postings that qualified applicants with criminal histories (one or more criminal misdemeanor or felony convictions for which the person has been placed on probation, fined, imprisoned or paroled) would be considered. Violations of job posting requirements carry a $500 fine.
California state and local governments are already prohibited from requesting criminal background information until it is determined that the applicant meets the minimum employment qualifications for the position. In addition, the California Fair Employment and Housing Council is considering regulations that would prohibit an employer from taking into account an individual’s criminal history in employment decisions if an “adverse impact” on individuals in protected classes would result.
The author would like to gratefully acknowledge the assistance of Joanne Warriner.
This alert is intended to note current legal trends in commercial lending and risk management issues. No alert should be construed as representing advice on specific, individual legal matters, but rather as an overview of the subject discussed. Your questions and comments are always welcome. Please do not hesitate to contact me at kscott@ecjlaw.com to further discuss this alert or to answer any questions.
- Partner
Kelly Scott is a partner and head of the firm’s Employment Law Department.
Mr. Scott is also a member of the Litigation Department and has practiced law since 1987. His areas of practice include representation of employers in all ...
Subscribe
Recent Posts
- Landlord: Look Out and Take Notice | By: Geoffrey M. Gold
- New Cal/OSHA Indoor Heat Standards Require New Prevention Measures and Written Prevention Plan | By: Joanne Warriner
- California Bans All Plastic Bags at Grocery Stores | By: Pooja S. Nair
- FTC’s Nationwide Ban on Non-Compete Agreements Stopped by Federal Court Ruling | By: Cate A. Veeneman
- Can the IRS Obtain a Receiver to Help Collect Taxes Owed? | By: Peter Davidson
- Severing Unconscionable Terms in Employment Arbitration Agreements | By: Jared W. Slater
- Can You Collaterally Attack a Receiver’s Appointment?
- Changes to PAGA Create Opportunities for Employers to Minimize Penalties | By: Tanner Hosfield
- Overbroad Employment Arbitration Agreements Will Not Be Enforced in California | By: Jared W. Slater
- LA Al Fresco Deadline Extended | By: Pooja S. Nair
Blogs
Contributors
Archives
- October 2024
- September 2024
- August 2024
- July 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014